The Constitutional Court ruled that the provisions that are not ordered that the defendants have sworn before giving testimony in court are unconstitutional. Because, according to the Court, in the examination, the defendant has the right to give information freely. Thus it was stated by the Court in case No. 67/PUU-IX/2011, Wednesday (29/2), at the Plenary Court Room. The applicant in this case, Frans Delu, test of Article 155 and Article 160 paragraph (3) Law no. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Proceedings (Criminal Code).

That means more of the Court; a defendant has the right to rebut the arguments put forward in the charges and provides testimony favorable to him. "In criminal law, a defendant has the right to not provide information that would incriminate / hurt himself in a court of law," wrote the Court in its decision.

Those rights provided for in Article 175 of Law 8/1981 which states, "If the defendant did not answer or refused to answer questions put to him, the presiding judge of the trial advocate to answer and after that the examination be continued". Of these provisions, the defendant is allowed to not answer or refused to answer questions put to him. In such case, said the Court, the presiding judge of the trial only recommends the defendant to answer. There is no penalty for a defendant who refused to answer.

In addition, continued the Court, there are at least four legal reasons defendant was sworn in to give testimony in court under the provisions of Law 8/1981. First, the defendant is allowed to not answer or refused to answer questions put to him. Secondly, the examination at the trial should continue to use the presumption of innocence. Third, defendant’s testimony alone is not sufficient to prove that he is guilty of committing acts that were charged to him, but must be accompanied by other evidence. And fourth, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

That based on these reasons, when the defendant’s testimony to be given under oath as the Petitioner’s argument, then it is not in accordance with the law of criminal procedure as described above. Therefore, the Court granted defendant’s testimony under oath would conflict with the principle of prohibition of self-blame (non self-incrimination) and the presumption of innocence contained in the law of criminal procedure.

Until finally, in its decision the Court stated injunction petition can not be accepted.” The applicant has no legal status (legal standing) to file the petition a quo," said Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, who also acted as Chairman of the plenary session of judge’s verdict?

Court’s opinion, Petitioner’s constitutional rights specified in Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) are not harmed by the 1945 enactment of the provisions of Article 155 and Article 160 paragraph (3) of 8 / 1981. "The applicant can still perform his constitutional rights in question. Moreover the petitioner in the petition also acknowledged that ‘the articles petitioned for review does not actually harm the applicant.’ "

Previously, the Petitioner argues that there is differential treatment of witnesses by the defendant, the witness was sworn in before giving testimony in advance while the defendant was sworn in first. That’s according to the Petitioner did not result in defendant’s testimony as evidence valuable to the detriment of the defendant and the potential harm of every citizen who filed by the Attorney General as a defendant before trial. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)